THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoon at 4,45 in order to sit in a closed session.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have noticed that counsel for the defendant Kaltenbrunner is here this morning. I understood there was to be some cross-examination of this defendant by counsel for Kaltenbrunner, and I thought we might save time if he preceded us and finished his cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFMANN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner) : Mr. President, I beg to apologize for drawing upon the Tribunal's favor yesterday by not being here. But I had a very special reason. The reason was stronger than my will. I have just recovered from a serious illness, if I may state this now, and I did not feel at all well, although I was firmly decided to appear before this Tribunal.
I had prepared everything, you see. I beg to be allowed to apologize to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Dr. Kaufmann; the Tribunal accepts your explanation.
DR. KAUFMANN: Thank you very much. BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. Mr. Witness, when did you meet the defendant Kaltenbrunner?
A. It was eigher in 1935 or at the beginning of 1936 that I met the defendant Kaltenbrunner, in connection with relief work for national socialist families who were in need.
Q. What part did Kaltenbrunner play before the Anschluss in March of 1938 in Austria? Was he a member of the radical element or was he conservative?
A. At the time, I was told that Kaltenbrunner was close to the SS, but he was not the leader of the legal SS. That was an engineer from Syria.
Was it Leopold? Was it the engineer named Leopold?
A. I talked repeatedly to Zernatto about Kaltenbrunner when he was called into the police on the 11th of July, in the party; that is to say that it was due to his influence that illegal elements were kept away in July, 1934.
Q. And then Kaltenbrunner became Undersecretary of State in Austria ? Was the suggestion for his nomination as Undersecretary of State made by Austrians, or did it come from Himmler and Hitler, or the defendant Goering ?
A. As far as I know, it was only made by Austrians. I myself did not have any suggestion from the Reich regarding my own ministry, for instance. The party in Austria drew my attention to Kaltenbrunner because we wanted to have a man in the police administration.
Q. What were his tasks, in practice, when he was Undersecretary of State ?
A. I think that as Undersecretary of State, he did nothing at all. After Skubl retired, the president of the country nominated him as Secretary of State. In that capacity, he had administrative and economic functions. He could not intervene in the executive, for instance, If I wished for a man to be relieved from custody, then Kaltenbrunner would have to get in touch with the commander of the Security Police; and if he in turn said no, then he would have to go to Heydrich.
Q. Now, it has been ascertained that in 1943 Kaltenbrunner became chief of the RSHA. He has testified here that he repeatedly tried not to accept that post. Can you tell me anything about that ?
A. I only know that at the end of November or the beginning of December, 1942, I was at the headquarters. On that occasion, I also visited the field headquarters of Himmler. And one of the Adjutants, I think, Wolff, told me that the Reichsfuehrer wanted to have Kaltenbrunner for the RSHA. But Kaltenbrunner was objecting, in that he was now going to be ordered to appear at police headquarters for four weeks, where he would undergo suitable treatments so that he would take over the post.
Q. Have you any clues of the fact that the actual reason for the appointment of Kaltenbrunner as chief of the RSHA was that he should run the political and military intelligence service, organize it, and lead it ?
A. I have certain clues to the effect that he did not have control of security police matters to the same extent as Heydrich I have definite facts regarding his intelligence work. In Heydrich's time, the commander of my security police only talked about Heydrich when he wished to get a decision from Berlin. When Kaltenbrunner came into office, I no longer remember his mentioning Kaltenbrunner but talking about the RSHA, and sometimes mentioning Mueller's name. I myself, as far as I can remember only discussed two security police matters with Kaltenbrunner. One was the case of Dr. Schuschnigg's remaining, and Dr. Kaltenbrunner has already told you about that. The second time, a relative of mine was to be taken to a concentration camp, and I went to Kaltenbrunner because he was the only man I knew in the RSHA and also because I assumed he had some say there. various functions. At that time, Kaltenbrunner telephoned Mueller and he talked in such a manner as a superior would not talk to a subordinate official. I have positive evidence for his activities because since 1944 I was working together closely with Kaltenbrunner in that respect. I placed at his disposal foreign currency for his foreign intelligence service. At least, I obtained it for him from the departments concerned, all of which was done in agreement with the department in the Reich which was concerned about this.
Q. Just now, you have mentioned Mueller. You mean Gestapo Chief Mueller ?
A. Yes.
his hands regarding the Security Police functions? call Kaltenbrunner said to Mueller: "How are you going to solve the case"?
Q Then you had military and political reports from Kaltenbrunner's hands, is that true?
A Yes, repeatedly. Those were the very secret reports which were only issued in four copies.
Q Was that for Kaltenbrunner's nomination?
A No. The support for Kaltenbrunner only started at the end of '43 or '44, if I remember rightly. usually compiled by Canaris?
A Canaris' reports I don't know, or I only know them partly. I know those from the former RSHA. keen and open criticism with regards to all public measures and that they distinguished themselves through that?
A Yes, and most of all, Kaltenbrunner's reports were objective. They were not prepared, reports serving purposes.
Q To what extent did you receive these reports? times more, and it probably appeared every three to four weeks as far as I know; but then there must have been special reports as well. military sources or did they -- the ones you have just mentioned -- contain military descriptions of the situation? and they were addressed to the Fuehrer. In those reports, I remember there having been a particularly severe attitude of the Reich toward the Poles and towards the Catholic Church, and they were written on stationery with the RSHA heading, which appeared to me to be quite an impossible state of affairs.
Q You are just mentioning two criticisms. Can you perhaps tell me, what were the oontents of that criticism which referred to the two subjects which you have just mentioned, those two matters of public life? Poland should once again be given autonomy, an independent state of administration, or at least they were promised it; and with reference to the Catholic Church, it demanded the rescinding of all administrative and other orders and demanded that they should remain without interference; that is to say, Catholic and Protestant church.
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, thank you very much. I have no further questions. BY MR. DODD: in 1938 and that your party membership number was somewhere in the millions?
A Seven million. The membership came into effect from March 1938. That is when I became formally a member of the Party.
Q Well, when you say "formally", you are trying to distinguish them, as I understand it, and point out that you were, in fact, although maybe not formally a party member for some time, but you paid dues and you supported the party, didn't you?
A The first two points are incorrect. I only paid supporting dues from the autumn, '37 -- from autumn, '32 rather, until the autumn of '33; but inside me I felt that I was a National Socialist and I called myself a party member without having signed the corresponding document.
Q Were you a member of the Styrian Home Protective Organization? autumn, '32. by the National Socialist Party at one time and while you were a member, wasn't it?
A That had been the intention but it was not carried cut. There had been an agreement that the Styrian Home Protection Organization was to be included in the Party, but Munich did not carry this out. Individual members of the Styrian Home Protection Organization had to join the Party individually.
Q Do you know a man by the name of Dr. Andreas Morsey, M-o-r-s-e-y?
A Do you mean Andreas Moser, M-o-s-e-r? I think he was a solicitor but I didn't know him personally. Home Protective Organization? 1938, just a few days before the Anschluss?
Q Well, let me see if I can help you any. Do you remember telling him that you entered the Styrian Home Protective Organization in 1932 and that that was shortly before the organization was forbidden?
A That is quite out of the question. The chief of the Styrian Home Protection Organization was Constantin Kammerhofer. The whole of Austria knew that.
Q You don't remember, then, having any conversation in which you said such as I have just stated to you? Is your statement that you never said it or that you don't remember the conversation?
That is what I am trying to get at. is out of the question that I could have said that I was the chief of the Styrian Home Protection Organization, because the whole of Austria knew that this was Constantin Kammerhofer. I only may have told him that I was a very close friend, of Kammerhofer, and that of course was the case. rather, in the case of the People versus Dr. Guido Schmidt. It is Document No. 3992. This testimony was given before the Supreme Penal Court in Vienna on the 19th day of March, 1946, before Judge Sucher.
MR. DODD: We offer this as USA 882. which begins: "On the 7th of March 1938--" and so on, --"before it was made possible; shortly before the Styrian Home Protective Organization was forbidden in 1933." Then he goeson and makes reference to the man Kammerhofer, whom you just made reference to, and further down, in the next sentence, he says: "He (Seyss-Inquart) had entered this organization and he had been admitted by Leader Engineer Pichler(Franz) in Waitz and he had never left the organization." Therefore, your statement that you had not been a member of the NSDAP can be considered formally correct, but the statement that you had not worked illegally he says, is not true?
A Dr. Moser couldn't possibly know whether I worked illegally. He is basing his statement on the assumption that the Home Protection Organization was actually amalgamated into the NSDAP, and that is incorrect. The witness Kammerhofer will be in position to confirm it. I still remain quite firm in my testimony.
Q Do you know a man named Rainer?
A Very well indeed. Dr. Friedrich Rainer.
Q Yes. You have asked for him and he is coming here as a witness in your behalf, isn't he? when that Styrian Home Protective Organization went over?
Q All right, let me tell you something that will help you. This document is already in evidence, so I assume you may have seen it. It is No. 812 PS, USA.
A Yes. It is a letter, a report from Dr. Rainer.
Q So you know what he has said, I assume. You have seen the document, have you? member through your membership in the Styrian Home Protective Organization and that you joined the Party, so to speak, when that organization was taken over?
A Yes. I want to tell you that until'38 that was even my opinion. I was doubting whether that was right or wrong, but in '38 the Party stated strictly that they were not recognizing that position and that the members of the Styrian Home Protection Organization were not members of the Party but that every one of them had to join the Party individually to be a party member. Rainer would have to confirm to that. didn't you, during all this time, acknowledge the leadership of Klausner, who was the leader of the National Socialist Party in Austria, and didn't you follow his wishes and obey his directions?
A The leaders in Austria or in Germany do you mead?
Q In Austria. I am talking about Klausner, who was in Austria.
A Oh, yes. It was clear to me and I recognized the fact that Klausner had the lead of the Austrian National Socialist. I did not recognize Klausner as my political leader, a fact which becomes apparent from that report which you, Mr. Prosecutor, have just mentioned. There Rainer says: "Seyss-Inquart did not, however, recognize Klausner as the leading political leader."
Q Well, now, wait a minute and look. On page 9, I think of the German text, line 7 from the bottom, page 7 in the English text:
"The relationship between Seyss-Inquart and Klausner was as follows: Seyss-Inquart acknowledged unconditionally the Party leadership and actions taken by it, and he also acknowledged Klausner as the leader of the Party. As a Party member, he was under the command of Klausner and received orders from him."
Do you find that?
Q I have a copy before me, but it goes on to say:
"Over and above that, he declared himself on the basis of the agreement at Berchtesgaden, and particularly on the basis of the statement made by the Fuehrer on the occasion of his state visit to Berlin, as being directly responsible to the Fuehrer for the illegal NSDAP in Austria within his political and state functions." I would not subordinate myself to Klausner.
Q Well, anyway, to move along, it is a fact, isn't it, that very early in this period you acknowledged your unqualified allegiance to Hitler, and long before the Anschluss, too? You acknowledged your political allegiance, didn't you?
A You can almost say that, yes. As far as the unconditional position was concerned, that wasn't clear to me at the time because it was my opinion that there would be a revolutionary way chosen, too.
Q Well, all right. Didn't you have something to do with the Dollfuss matter other than what you have told the Tribunal? You know, of course, that Rainer says that you did, in this same document 812-PS.
Q And I think it is important that you make some answer to it. You haven't done it on your direct testimony, and the document is in evidence, and in it he says that you supported -
A (Interposing): The reason, Mr. Prosecutor, why I didn't was because Rainer will be here as a witness.
Rainer will have to tell us under oath which facts formed the basis for his statement. I can only say -
Q (Interposing): well, I knew. I understand that, and that is my reason for asking you now. You see, you will be off the witness stand when he is on it, and I would like to know what you say now to what Rainer has said in this document which is in evidence, to the effect that you were involved in the Dollfuss plot on July 25, 1934. clear up now if we can. You didn't mean to convey to the Tribunal, did you, that the ceremonies -- if I may use that expression -- commemorating the assassination of Dollfuss had nothing to do with Dollfuss at the time that they were hold? celebration was a ceremony for the four National Socialists who had been hanged. On that occasion, as far as I remember, there wasn't the thought of Dollfuss' death. It was the fact that 107 men -- I think 106 or 107 men of that unit -- had made an attempt to remove a system which in National Socialist opinion was hostile to the Reich, and certain were hanged. The fact that Dollfuss was shot on that same occasion wasn't mentioned during the ceremony.
Q Well, I don't say that it was, but the ceremony certainly commemorated the attack on Dollfuss, and, I think it is quibbling, is it not, to say that tie had no -
A (Interposing): No, if Dollfuss hadn't been shot, then the ceremony would have been carried out just the same. course again we are going to talk a good deal in this short time, I think, about Rainer and this document. You know Rainer also says that you were appointed through the influence of Keppler and other Nazis in Austria, and Reich officials. Is that so? Did they influence your appointment in 1937? Rainer is wrong about that as well, is he?
A In no way whatever. Keppler -
Q (Interposing): All right.
A (Continuing): -- had no influence at all on the nomination of State Councillor. have? You disagree with his statement, as I understand it. I want to make that clear. matter with a friend of mine and then suggested it to Schuschnigg. A proposal from Keppler would probably have been cause for Schuschnigg's not nominating me. somebody spoke to him, and the Nazis with whom you were familiar in those days had nothing to do with it, had they?
A Oh no, that is what I don't want to say. The possibility of appointment to State Councillor was discussed between Rainer and myself, and a mutual acquaintance had previously discussed the question with me before talking to Zernatto. Then I discussed it with Rainer, but there was no influence with regard to the appointment. 386-PS, introduced before this Tribunal many months ago. Do you recall that Hitler, in the course of this discourse that is reported by Hoszbach, stated some of the plans that he had for Austria as well as for Czechoslovakia? Do you remember that? It is in the document.
Q That was the 11th of November 1937 -- no, I'm sorry; it was on the 5th of November 1937. When did you first hear about that meeting? For the first time in your life, when did you hear about it? Dr. Jury?
Q Do you remember it very well, or would you like to see a copy of it? I will show it to you. We have a copy here. You haven't seen this; this is a new document.
A That's right. November 1937 and said:
"I personally believe that there will be no visible results until early next year. In the meantime, I have received an authentic report from Linz..." and you go on to talk about a newspaper article.
What I wanted to know was: What did you mean by the events in the early part of 1938? that any political position wouldn't remain static. The National Socialists thought that during the subsequent weeks either Schuschnigg would retire or something would happen in any case. I considered the situation to be different. It was my opinion that the new political developments in Austria wouldn't happen until the spring, that is to say, developments towards further permissible activities for the National Socialists. important to your answer. I wanted to go back a little bit. You see, you open your letter by referring to a conversation with Mr. Keppler. Now, he is the man who was Hitler's emissary on the 11th and 12th of March when Austria, was handed over to the Nazis, isn't he?
Q And you say, "The conversations were carried on in complete quiet and they were also extremely revealing. I don't believe that the matters have as yet been so fully investigated as it seems to be the case on the national side and in the Reich."
Then you go on, "I should be pleasantly surprised if the initial solution were to take place here in the course of this year."
the Nazis. Isn't that what you had in mind when you wrote this letter? Isn't that the "initial solution"?
A No. First of all, it doesn't say that my conversation with Keppler was secret.
Q It says "in complete quiet". I don't know whether that is secret. I don't know what that means.
A Yes, it means that we talked very realistically. Possibly it was mentioned that some diplomatic pressure might be applied, but the target was permissible activities for National Socialists in Austria, with the intention, however, that the Anschluss should be aimed at and achieved.
The contents of the Hoszbach Document weren't mentioned at all, and I am perfectly convinced that Keppler had no idea of what they were. Keppler didn't have a very strong position with the Fuehrer, you see.
Q Yes. You recall you wrote Keppler a letter a little later, in January of 1938. Do you remember that? responsibility or whatever the popular expression is. indeed, to whom Keppler refers in his letter?
A No, the mandate was the Austrian State Councillorship. That is what I wanted, and I wanted the task of investigating the understanding necessary with the national opposition for cooperation with us. I didn't receive a mandate from Keppler, and I could hardly have accepted one.
Q You know the document is in evidence, 3397-PS. It is USA-702. Keppler says that he informed Goering of the situation and that Goering told him to keep you at your task, or that is the sense of it.
Now, my question is: Why should Goering be interested in this mandate if it only had to do with your position as State Councillor in Austria? He wasn't an official of the Austrian Government, and you were.
A May I have the document in this case?
You will also find reference in here to Dr. Jury, the very mean concerning whom we talked a few minutes back, and to whom you wrote that letter on the 11th of November.
A Which half do you mean, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q I'm sorry; I didn't understand that. Which what?
A Which position do you mean with reference to this letter?
Q Well, my question about it is this: I am wondering why Keppler would go to Goering with your desire to withdraw from whatever position it was that you occupied with respect to the Nazis, or, as you put it, with respect to your place as State Councillor, and it is even more of a problem to us with respect to your explanation.
What did Goering have to do with that?
A Yes, quite. Yesterday I stated that Dr. Schuschnigg had given me the task of investigating conditions for cooperating with national opposition. I always told Schuschnigg that the Austrian National Socialists wouldn't cooperate without Hitler's agreement. With the knowledge of Zernatto and Dr. Schuschnigg I visited Goering and Hess, and both these gentlemen knew that I not only had contact with Austria, but also with German National Socialists, something which was also known to those gentlemen in the Reich, and they were interested. If now I should suddenly say, "I stop; I am not going on", then I should consider it my duty to inform these men in the Reich that they can no longer expect my work, my cooperation. Of course, that is a matter of course. One would always have to do that sort of thing.
after your meeting with Hess and Goering, too, wasn't it? Of course it was, you saw Goering in July, 1937.
Q Well, alright. Now I will ask you a little bit about this meeting with Herr von Papen in Garmisch and which was not planned, as I understand you. You talked about the possibility of the position of the Minister of Security being filled by a member of the Nazi Party. Did you also talk of the possible trip of Schuschnigg to Berchtesgaden, which didn't come so long after this meeting?
A No, we didn't mention it. The technical means were there, and whether a meeting between Dr. Schuschnigg and Hitler was to be arranged was not discussed by us.
Q Wasn't it discussed at all? Wasn't there any discussion about it? between Schuschnigg and Hitler, and from whom?
A I think two days ... On or about 10th of February, I had news ciming from Rainer or Globocnik telling me beforehand that this meeting was arranged. It was at the same time that Zernatto asked me to come to Vienna, but he still didn't tell me what it was about.
Q Actually, isn't it a fact that you prepared notes for Hitler which were the basis of his discussions with Schuschnigg in Berchtesgaden?
A I didn't quite understand. What was it that I was supposed to have prepared?
Q My question is, isn't it a fact that you prepared notes, or if you prefer to call it a memorandum, for Hitler which he used as the basis of his discussion with Schuschnigg in Berchtesgaden? gave it to Zernatto and Dr. Rainer, either one or the other. It is perfectly possible that Raines passed it on to the Reich. you and your associates, the night before the conference, that he was sent to Berchtesgaden ahead of Schuschnigg and Von Papen with that memorandum, isn't that a fact?
A Dr. Muehlmann?
A Dr. Muehlmann went to Berchtesgaden at that time and I was informed that he probably took notes about my last conversation with Dr. Schuschnigg.
Q Don't you know that he did, and Schuschnigg didn't know and that's the important thing that Muehlmann was doing up there ahead of him? He took the notes and conditions you had presented to Schuschnigg the night before. Schuschnigg didn't know that when he went there like a lamb the night before.
A I am convinced Schuschnigg didn't know. Quite probably he informed Keppler. When I talked to Dr. Schuschnigg, I did not know Muehlmann would go.
Q When did you find out that Muehlmann did go?
AAfter the discussion with Dr. Schuschnigg, I returned to my office and these was Dr. Rainer, and probably someone else, and I told Dr. Rainer about our conversation. Possibly Muehlmann was present and consequently, I don't want to except myself from this, we decided to inform Hitler of the contents of our conversation.. In the meantime, Dr. Schuschnigg probably went to the station and there would not have been any reason to inform him directly. nature of the conversation with Chancellor Schuschnigg that night?
AAt that time, I san no opportunity or cause to inform Dr. Schuschnigg of the fact that Muehlmann was going. is that you did want to let Hitler knew that you had this conversation with Schuschnigg, and what you said? versation with the head of your own State to which you owed allegiance?
A I don't see that this is a breach of faith, informing the leader of another state. Germany at that time without notifying your own Chancellors Schuschnigg didn't know that you sent that note on the Hitler, now be frank about it?
A Right, it is certain that Dr. Schuschnigg didn't know. But Dr. Schuschnigg did know that I was in constant contact with the Reich through Keppler, and that the outcome of our conversation was always based on the Reich for it was not a political understanding unless Hitler agreed. That's a fact. We could not have made a political understanding any other way. Schuschnigg. Do you remember the time when you gave him your word of honor that you would not make known his plans for the plebscite? what your associates asked you and what answers you made?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot help it, but I think you are making a mistake. At that time I did not go to the Regina Hotel. It was on the evening of the 10th of March and it was quite a different story. First of all, it was wrong for Dr. Schuschnigg to ask me for my word of honor. On the evening of 12 February it was my duty to inform the Reich. But I kept my word. Still, on the same evening, Jury came to me, you have heard this from other sources, and not with a word did I mention that to Jury. Then, on the following morning, Rainer came .... He said that it was in the morning, but it was toward the middle of the day, really.
Q Well, I will accept the correction as to the time, but I don't think it's very important.
Q Very well, we will settle for that. I want you to hear what Rainer says about this keeping of your word.
"Seyss-Inquart said that he knew about this for only a few hours, but that he could not talk about it because he had given his word to keep it secret, but during the talk, he made it understood that the illegal information we received was based on truth, and that in view of the new situation, he had been cooperating with the Landesleitung from the very first moment." as both you and Schuschnigg understood it.
A In this case, it was not possible to do it any differently. It was toward mid-day of the day when this thing happened, but you can't stand in front of me and tell me that this is a bunch of lies because I did promise Schuschnigg to do this -- to keep this secret.
tions in order to give to your associates what Schuschnigg asked you to keep confidential. gaden, about the terrible threats and the terrible way Schuschnigg was treated up there?
A That I heard from Zernatto. I think it was, if I am right, on February 13. Then I heard it from Dr. Schmidt. He told me about it himself. was treated and I suppose you knew about Keitel being called in to frighten him, and all the threats of marching in by sundown. You had a full knowledge of what happened, didn't you?
A I don't know the story of Keitel, but Schuschnigg told me that the generals were there, and apparently there was military pressure exercised. Government as Minister of Security. Schuschnigg told you that, didn't he? have an Interior and Security Minister at their disposal, and Schuschnigg agreed with Hitler on that question. Schuschnigg was supposed to have mentioned my name, but that is nothing but rumors and stories and I don't know much about that. coming here who was at that meeting, Dr. Schmidt. Are you telling this Tribunal that it was Schuschnigg who suggested your name, and not Hitler who demanded that you be appointed?
A I don't want to tell the Tribunal any stories, I merely want to give to them the background of events as far as possible. If Schmidt says that it was the Fuehrer who suggested my name, then of course I will believe him. timony of Foreign Minister Schmidt that Hitler demanded it and that Schuschnigg agreed.
A Dr. Muehlmann told me that. But I want to say, that the facts are as you state them. This is a tactical task. If the Fuehrer forced Schuschnigg to supply the Minister of the Interior, and then there is a display of words, I do not want to draw any conclusion from that as to who was supporting my defense.
Q I think that is very brave. The fact of the matter is that it was all arranged; you know it and so did Hitler that you were to be included in the government and that anything that went on was unimportant as to who actually mentioned your name first? demand the Ministry of the Interior and that I would be nominated. Von Papen did not inform me about the outcome of his conversation with Hitler, you see. I only questioned that that is how the matter might proceed. I was not by any means so much of a persona grata in Berlin that Berlin would certainly decide on me. Berchtesgaden, Hitler broke it, did he not?
Q He broke it before the 17th, didn't he? Do you remember when he appointed Klausner as head of the Party, despite the fact that he had agreed with Schuschnigg that no such thing would be done and that there would be no such political organization? You knew about that, didn't you, when it was done? question.
Q Maybe it is a little involved. The point is that a fewdays after the meeting in Berchtesgaden, Hitler appointed Klausner as the head of the illegal Nazi Party in Austria; isn't that so? I myself suggested to Hitler that he ought to agree to Klausner being the leader of the National Socialists in Austria. It was perfectly clear to me that no National Socialist in Austria would follow anybody unless Hitler was agreeable. you have offered to the Tribunal? Would you accept his record of when it happened?
Q He says it was a fewdays after the Berchtesgaden meeting. I suppose that could be the 17th, but it is not likely. Wasn't it before you went to Berlin?